4 ms·

This seems to only clarify that mail might have been in possession by USPS _before_ the postmark date. I don't see how that affects mail in voting.

rbanffy 10mo ago
If the postmark is more than a day after the mail-in deadline, even though it was first received by the local post office before it, it can be claimed there is no evidence it was submitted before the deadline and invalidate the balot.
- teraflop 10mo ago
  That was already the case. This "rule" is not any kind of change in process, it's just a formal acknowledgement that the situation you're describing can happen. Why do you think that acknowledgement is a problem?
  - rbanffy 10mo ago
    Would a ballot received before the deadline, but postmarked a day later, still be counted? If not, why not, if it was received before the deadline?
    - teraflop 10mo ago
      You're muddying the waters by using the word "received". The instant in time at which your letter is technically "received" by the USPS, in the sense of them having physical possession, has never mattered for any legal purposes whatsoever. That's because in many cases, there is absolutely no physical proof of exactly what instant in time that event happened. Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable. They're either based on when the ballot was delivered to the election office, or when the ballot was postmarked. The postmarking may happen at some point while the piece of mail is in USPS custody, or it may not happen at all if you don't specifically ask for it. The rules are based on the postmark date because the postmark date is the only available documentary evidence of the date of mailing. Again, this is not a change in policy, it's merely documenting the way the mail system has always worked.
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable Has anyone challenged their ballot being rejected by producing video showing them putting the ballot in an envelope and putting said envelope in a mailbox?
        CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
        No, and to do so would be to challenge the law itself since the laws are written with reference to postmark date. Perhaps ironically, video evidence has been used to invalidate ballots. In 2023, a CT judge invalidated the results of the Democratic primary, finding "ballot stuffing" in that 1,253 absentee ballots were submitted at Bridgeport dropboxes despite surveillance video only showing 420 people using the boxes. A new Democratic primary was ordered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Connecticut_mayoral_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Co...
  - ofalkaed 10mo ago
    Right, this is how it has always been, if you wanted to insure a postmark you HAD to go into the post office and ask, otherwise there is are no promises, even if you mail it a week in advance it might not get a postmark.
alistairSH 10mo ago
Delaying the post-mark, or not applying one at all, gives anti-mail ballot groups more leverage in their lawsuits.
- spankalee 10mo ago
  Didn't it already?
  - alistairSH 10mo ago
    There was plausible deniability on the part of the voter/sender. Now there isn’t. Except I doubt that many people will actually know about the change/clarification so they’ll continue to mail ballots and taxes at the last second. In a sane world, anything mailed “close enough” would be accepted. Or there’d be an explict 5-day grace period.
- CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
  It could be argued that if a) there is not reasonable, reliable method of determining and documenting when a voter casts their mail-in ballots, and b) we all agree that there must be a deadline for casting ballots, then mail-in voting is prima facie not a great idea
- itsdrewmiller 10mo ago
  What lawsuits? It means that more ballots will not be accepted, but if anything it should (very slightly) strengthen the case for people who claim they voted on time but were postmarked inaccurately.
CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
By admitting that the postmark date is a reflection of processing capability rather than voter action, the USPS has undermined the legal standard used in Pennsylvania and other states to determine the validity of late-arriving ballots. This reinforces the argument that mass mail-in voting relies on a logistical system that the USPS itself admits is not "perfectly reliable" for dating time-sensitive documents. In states that require a postmark by Election Day to count a ballot received later, the operational reality of postmarking creates a chaotic environment where timely votes could be disqualified, or conversely, creates ambiguity about when a ballot actually entered the system. It is unreasonable to expect every mail-in voter to stand in line at a post office to get a manual stamp to prove they voted on time. If the standard automated system cannot guarantee an accurate date, as this rule admits, then using that system for critical constitutional functions like voting is inherently flawed.
- itsdrewmiller 10mo ago
  Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. If you dump your ballot at the last possible minute in a box, your vote might not count. That was a risk before and maybe a slightly bigger risk now. So don’t do that. If you’re not sure, go vote in person.

rbanffy 10mo ago

If the postmark is more than a day after the mail-in deadline, even though it was first received by the local post office before it, it can be claimed there is no evidence it was submitted before the deadline and invalidate the balot.

teraflop 10mo ago
That was already the case. This "rule" is not any kind of change in process, it's just a formal acknowledgement that the situation you're describing can happen. Why do you think that acknowledgement is a problem?
- rbanffy 10mo ago
  Would a ballot received before the deadline, but postmarked a day later, still be counted? If not, why not, if it was received before the deadline?
  - teraflop 10mo ago
    You're muddying the waters by using the word "received". The instant in time at which your letter is technically "received" by the USPS, in the sense of them having physical possession, has never mattered for any legal purposes whatsoever. That's because in many cases, there is absolutely no physical proof of exactly what instant in time that event happened. Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable. They're either based on when the ballot was delivered to the election office, or when the ballot was postmarked. The postmarking may happen at some point while the piece of mail is in USPS custody, or it may not happen at all if you don't specifically ask for it. The rules are based on the postmark date because the postmark date is the only available documentary evidence of the date of mailing. Again, this is not a change in policy, it's merely documenting the way the mail system has always worked.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable Has anyone challenged their ballot being rejected by producing video showing them putting the ballot in an envelope and putting said envelope in a mailbox?
      - CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
        No, and to do so would be to challenge the law itself since the laws are written with reference to postmark date. Perhaps ironically, video evidence has been used to invalidate ballots. In 2023, a CT judge invalidated the results of the Democratic primary, finding "ballot stuffing" in that 1,253 absentee ballots were submitted at Bridgeport dropboxes despite surveillance video only showing 420 people using the boxes. A new Democratic primary was ordered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Connecticut_mayoral_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Co...
- ofalkaed 10mo ago
  Right, this is how it has always been, if you wanted to insure a postmark you HAD to go into the post office and ask, otherwise there is are no promises, even if you mail it a week in advance it might not get a postmark.

alistairSH 10mo ago

Delaying the post-mark, or not applying one at all, gives anti-mail ballot groups more leverage in their lawsuits.

spankalee 10mo ago
Didn't it already?
- alistairSH 10mo ago
  There was plausible deniability on the part of the voter/sender. Now there isn’t. Except I doubt that many people will actually know about the change/clarification so they’ll continue to mail ballots and taxes at the last second. In a sane world, anything mailed “close enough” would be accepted. Or there’d be an explict 5-day grace period.
CGMthrowaway 10mo ago
It could be argued that if a) there is not reasonable, reliable method of determining and documenting when a voter casts their mail-in ballots, and b) we all agree that there must be a deadline for casting ballots, then mail-in voting is prima facie not a great idea
itsdrewmiller 10mo ago
What lawsuits? It means that more ballots will not be accepted, but if anything it should (very slightly) strengthen the case for people who claim they voted on time but were postmarked inaccurately.

CGMthrowaway 10mo ago

By admitting that the postmark date is a reflection of processing capability rather than voter action, the USPS has undermined the legal standard used in Pennsylvania and other states to determine the validity of late-arriving ballots. This reinforces the argument that mass mail-in voting relies on a logistical system that the USPS itself admits is not "perfectly reliable" for dating time-sensitive documents. In states that require a postmark by Election Day to count a ballot received later, the operational reality of postmarking creates a chaotic environment where timely votes could be disqualified, or conversely, creates ambiguity about when a ballot actually entered the system. It is unreasonable to expect every mail-in voter to stand in line at a post office to get a manual stamp to prove they voted on time. If the standard automated system cannot guarantee an accurate date, as this rule admits, then using that system for critical constitutional functions like voting is inherently flawed.

itsdrewmiller 10mo ago
Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. If you dump your ballot at the last possible minute in a box, your vote might not count. That was a risk before and maybe a slightly bigger risk now. So don’t do that. If you’re not sure, go vote in person.